Bangladesh’s power shortage has increased recently, placing additional strain on an already stretched national grid. The Power Division revealed that Thursday’s peak demand stood at 17,000MW, while generation was estimated to reach only 14,000MW, leaving a shortfall of around 3,000MW. The day earlier, a deficit of over 2,000MW translated directly into load-shedding.
The reasons are well-rehearsed by now: rising summer heat, gas shortages, coal constraints, higher import costs of fuel, and pressure on foreign exchange reserves. At present, 71 of the country’s 143 power plants are either idle or operating below capacity due to shortages of gas, coal, and furnace oil. To meet peak summer demand, the Bangladesh Power Development Board (BPDB) requires about 1,200 million cubic feet of gas daily, but is receiving only around 870 million. This structural fuel gap alone explains a large share of reduced output.
Domestic constraints, however, are not the only pressure point. Internal data from Wednesday shows that India’s Adani Power, currently Bangladesh’s largest single source of imported electricity, temporarily reduced supply after one unit of its cross-border plant went offline for maintenance, cutting output by half to around 750MW. Since Bangladesh relies on these units for about 10 percent of daily electricity, even temporary disruptions deepen the crisis. The Power Division expects some easing from late April to early May with the phased return of generation units, including Adani as well as plants like Chattogram’s SS Power and Patuakhali’s RNPL.
But what is unfolding alongside this familiar energy stress is something more structurally revealing. The national figures, taken alone, suggest a system under pressure but still broadly functioning. But the experience of that shortage changes sharply once it moves from the grid to geography. Urban centres, particularly Dhaka, continue to receive relatively stable supply with shorter outages, even though State Minister for Power, Energy and Mineral Resources Anindya Islam Amit said on Thursday that the government had decided to trial around 110MW of load-shedding in the capital.
District towns and rural areas face longer and more frequent interruptions, often stretching into hours. In Rajshahi, Rangpur, Barishal, and Sylhet’s peripheral upazilas, rural outages now routinely stretch from 8-13 hours a day. Half-day shortages are becoming increasingly normal in some areas. Even within the same administrative regions, urban centres tend to remain relatively stable while the surrounding unions bear the heavier burden. A similar imbalance is visible in industrial zones: Gazipur and Narayanganj, for example, are prioritised to keep production running, whereas nearby rural belts absorb longer cuts.
This is where the logic of “load management” reveals its deeper mechanism. Officially, it is framed as a technical necessity: protecting critical infrastructure, sustaining industrial output, and preventing grid instability. That rationale holds in operational terms. But in practice, it also becomes the channel through which scarcity is organised. Once prioritisation is introduced, it tends to stabilise into a pattern. Over time, the power distribution begins to reflect not just technical need but accumulated hierarchy.
In rural and semi-urban areas, this hierarchy is experienced through fractured daily life. Irrigation schedules collapse into uncertainty, directly affecting crop cycles, while rising diesel dependency adds to the financial pressure. Water systems dependent on electric pumps become unreliable. Small industries and informal economic sectors face similar strain. Larger industrial clusters continue production but at higher operational costs and reduced efficiency, while smaller units absorb disproportionate losses.
There is also a quieter but increasingly visible cost in education. Students preparing for public examinations, particularly SSC candidates at present, deal with disrupted study environments during peak heat. Study hours are repeatedly broken, concentration becomes difficult, and preparation itself turns inconsistent.
And then, alongside uneven supply, another pressure is emerging on the consumption side. There is growing concern that electricity prices may rise further as generation costs increase and subsidy pressures intensify. This adds a second layer to the crisis: besides unreliable access, households face a rising financial burden. Crucially, this cost pressure is also uneven: those relying on generators, IPS systems, or unstable supply are likely to bear higher effective costs than those with a steady electricity supply.
Another layer of complexity lies in how the crisis is measured. National dashboards and generation data reflect overall shortfalls, but not how unevenly electricity is actually experienced. Reports suggest that official figures can indicate a manageable balance even while distribution companies ration supply through prolonged outages. The result is a gap not just in data, but in visibility—where system stability at the aggregate level masks persistent disruption on the ground.
This distortion becomes clearer when institutional data is compared. Bangladesh Rural Electrification Board (BREB) figures at times show significantly higher shortages than BPDB estimates for the same period, seemingly reflecting different calculation methods. Officials note that demand is often inferred rather than directly measured, while generation is shaped by fuel availability. Even within institutions, there is no fully aligned picture of the shortage being managed.
At the root of this imbalance is a fragile energy structure. Installed capacity remains high on paper, but a significant share is constrained by fuel dependency and operational limits. Gas fluctuations, imported coal logistics, furnace oil costs, and the pressure of payment to independent power producers all reduce effective generation. When fuel is tight, output falls unevenly, and shortages are managed through spatial prioritisation rather than uniform rationing.
Recent patterns also show that effective generation consistently falls short of installed capacity, as fuel constraints and operational limits keep a significant share of plants either underutilised or intermittently offline during peak demand. Capacity exists on paper, but its availability is variable and uneven, depending on fuel access, plant condition, and system-level prioritisation.
What is emerging eventually is a different kind of power discrimination, embedded in the management of scarcity itself, normalised through repetition until it appears inevitable.
And that is precisely where the conversation now needs to shift. Because if electricity has become a determinant of opportunity, productivity, and even basic dignity during extreme heat, its distribution cannot remain an administrative afterthought. The widening gap between urban continuity and rural disruption is no longer a seasonal inconvenience; it is a structural outcome that demands correction.
This requires more than short-term balancing during peak demand. It demands transparency in how load-shedding is allocated, alignment between reported data and distribution-level reality, and a serious rethink of whether critical services are being defined too narrowly around geography rather than need. It also requires investment choices that reduce over-centralisation, so that resilience is not concentrated in one part of the country while fragility is exported to another.
The heat will continue to rise, so may demand. Whether the burden of that rise continues to fall unevenly is not a natural outcome but a governed one. And anything that is governed can be redesigned.
Jannatul Naym Pieal is a writer, researcher, and journalist. He can be reached at [email protected].
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
